baram2584/FESADev
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

update agent, skill and scripts

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
KOKO\Mimi
2026-09-07 01:15:26 +09:00
parent 42a4847da5
commit d7e9629640
38 changed files with 476 additions and 2946 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
.codex/skills/fem-requirements-baseline/references/evidence-and-handoff.md
+3 -24
View File
@@ -1,26 +1,5 @@
# Evidence and Handoff Contract
# Evidence Notes
Use [Feature document management](../../../../docs/FEATURE_DOCUMENTATION.md) for concise main reports,
linked details, and Coordinator's document inventory. Include main and required detail paths in evidence.
Use this reference only when a task needs a durable evidence record. Record the feature/document path, decisive facts and assumptions, relevant commands with exit codes, comparison quantities and tolerance source when applicable, and residual risks. Keep source facts, calculations, inferences, and decisions distinct. A required failed or unrun check is not a pass.
Every stage returns one envelope:
| Field | Required content |
| --- | --- |
| `feature_id` | Stable feature identifier |
| `stage` | `requirements`, `research`, `formulation`, `numerical-review`, `io-definition`, `implementation-planning`, `implementation`, `correction`, `physics-evaluation`, or `release-readiness` |
| `outcome` | `pass`, `return-upstream`, `retry`, `blocked-environment`, or `needs-user-decision` |
| `next_owner` | Agent id, or YAML `null` |
| `evidence_paths` | Repository-relative artifacts used or produced |
| `evidence_digest` | Concise findings tied to requirement IDs |
| `failure_classification` | `configure`, `compile`, `link`, `test`, `reference-comparison`, `harness`, `environment`, `upstream-contract`, `physics`, `evidence`, or YAML `null` |
| `retry_key` | `<feature-id>\|<failing-gate>\|<classification>\|<contract-revision>`, or YAML `null` |
| `attempt` | Coordinator-managed nonnegative attempt count for the retry key |
| `escalation_class` | Critical-decision class, or YAML `null` |
| `blocker` | Actionable blocker, or YAML `null` |
Evidence records include, when applicable: source locator and access date; assumptions; command, exit code, duration, and relevant output; test identity and RED/GREEN result; artifact hash; comparison quantity, tolerance source, and decision; residual risk.
Use repository-relative paths and stable identifiers. Distinguish observed facts, calculations, inferences, and decisions. Never report a pass when a required command failed, evidence is stale, or a blocking acceptance item is unresolved.
Retry is bounded by the coordinator policy. A repeated normalized failure returns to its owning stage; it does not justify changing requirements, formulations, schemas, reference artifacts, or tolerances.
Return a concise result containing changed paths, evidence, and blockers; no common handoff envelope, workflow state, retry key, or coordinator inventory is required. Do not use repeated failure to justify changing requirements, formulations, schemas, reference artifacts, or tolerances.
.codex/skills/fem-requirements-baseline/references/workflow-and-decisions.md
+3 -3
View File
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ Proceed without user review for reversible choices within approved contracts: in
## User decisions
Return `needs-user-decision` only for a choice that changes at least one of:
Ask the user only for a choice that changes at least one of:
- supported physics, formulation meaning, or analysis scope;
- public compatibility or an authoritative I/O schema;
@@ -28,6 +28,6 @@ Return `needs-user-decision` only for a choice that changes at least one of:
Everything else follows the authority order. Lack of a preference is not a blocker when a deterministic in-contract choice exists.
## Contract flow
## Responsibilities
Requirements own acceptance intent; research owns evidence; formulation owns mathematics; numerical review owns independent numerical findings and logical verification coverage; I/O owns external/internal mappings; implementation owns code and tests; physics review owns physical plausibility; release review owns closure evidence. A downstream stage returns a defect to the owning upstream stage instead of silently rewriting its contract.
Requirements own acceptance intent; research owns evidence; formulation owns mathematics; numerical review owns independent numerical findings and verification coverage; I/O owns mappings; implementation owns code and tests; and physics review owns plausibility findings. Use only the expertise needed by the task. Do not silently rewrite another owner's contract to make downstream work pass.